Low Thia Khiang advised that ‘WP would survive the fallout’: Key points from day 4 of Pritam Singh’s trial

SINGAPORE – Former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre Loh Pei Ying was the second witness to take the stand in the trial of WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, after the prosecution wrapped up former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan’s re-examination within half an hour on the morning of Oct 17.

Singh is

fighting two charges

over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened in November 2021 to investigate Ms Khan’s untruth in Parliament. 

Ms Khan had,

on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament

about how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 the same year, before

admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.

Here are the key points that came up on Oct 17, as the trial court sat for the fourth day: 

1. Loh views Khan’s lie as a ‘big deal’ and ‘stain on WP’s history’

When Ms Loh took the stand, the court heard that she was a core member of WP’s media team in the 2020 General Election, where Ms Khan was elected as a first-time MP.

By then, Ms Loh, the head and co-founder of editorial company Kontinentalist, had been with WP for almost 10 years. She became Ms Khan’s secretarial assistant and helped the political newbie, who had started volunteering with WP only from the start of 2020, catch up with WP’s history, among other duties, the court heard.

On Aug 7, 2021, Ms Khan confessed over a Zoom video conferencing call to Ms Loh and WP cadre Yudhishthra Nathan that she had lied when Parliament sat on Aug 3.

Ms Loh, who left WP at the end of 2022, sought to clarify the facts during the call, as Ms Khan was emotional and “wasn’t very coherent”.

They also discussed political history, Ms Loh said, noting that Ms Khan, then 27, “had generally quite a poor understanding” of WP’s history. 

For instance, Ms Khan did not know former Hougang WP MP Yaw Shin Leong was expelled from the party in 2012 over allegations that he had an extramarital affair with a married woman.

“She did not know that whole thing happened,” Ms Loh told the court.

When she found out about Ms Khan’s untruth on Aug 7, 2021, Ms Loh regarded the matter as a “big deal” and “stain” on WP’s track record for an MP to have lied in that manner. She thus felt uncomfortable to have been made aware of it.

But after she heard from Ms Khan then that Singh had been clued in on the lie earlier on Aug 7, Ms Loh said she felt “a little relieved”, as the WP chief “would know what to do” if something was to be done about it.

2. Low Thia Khiang’s advice was to clarify the lie, and WP would survive the fallout: Loh

The court heard that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan met Singh at the WP chief’s house on the night of Oct 12, 2021.

Ms Loh said that at this “very lengthy” meeting, which took place after dinner, Singh shared that he had consulted former WP chief Low Thia Khiang on the matter the day before, and that the WP veteran had thought the best course of action was to make a clarification in Parliament and “WP would survive the falling out that would follow”. 

She and Mr Nathan were “very assuaged” upon hearing that this was Mr Low’s decision and advice, as they had a lot of faith and confidence in the elder’s opinion, Ms Loh told the court.

During the meeting, Singh also recounted that he had a feeling that Ms Khan’s matter would come up at the Oct 4, 2021, Parliament sitting, so he had gone to speak to Ms Khan the day before to “sort of give her a choice of whether or not to come clean in Parliament and that he would not judge her”, Ms Loh recalled.

Asked what she understood by “would not judge her”, Ms Loh said she thought it meant that he would not have a “poor opinion of her regardless of what she did” – specifically whether or not Ms Khan was going to confess or stay silent about her lie in Parliament.

She told the court that Singh’s recount had surprised her. “I was first surprised that he had the foresight that the matter would come up and also that he would say such a thing to her,” she said. “It felt like very unclear communication, it was vague instruction.”

Ms Loh also told the court that the meeting covered how Ms Khan’s Nov 1, 2021, statement before Parliament should be drafted as well.

This was where Ms Loh opined that it was “no good for the party” if the statement omitted the fact that Ms Khan was a sexual assault victim herself, given that this was how she had learnt of the original anecdote referenced in her lie to Parliament.

Singh had considered excluding the fact, she noted. Asked by the prosecution if Singh explained why, Ms Loh said he had said Ms Khan need not include the fact if that was difficult for her to share – what was important was to address that she had lied in Parliament, and he was of the view that a brief statement would be sufficient.

Ms Loh said she felt WP would risk coming across as a party of “compulsive liars” if the motivation behind why Ms Khan had lied was left unaddressed.

Her primary concern would be how sexual assault victims would be perceived after Ms Khan’s confession, since they could be made a “laughing stock, or cast upon as liars”, she added.

Ms Loh also testified that as a media person herself, she knew there was “no way” Ms Khan could have told the truth in Parliament by herself on Oct 4, 2021, without making any preparation.

“This lie is obviously going to be a shock to everyone. If she were to come up and just say ‘Yeah, I lied about it’, it would be very, very foolish of her to just go up and do that without the party,” she said.

For a matter of this magnitude, where the “fallout would be severe to a very high degree”, it was “unthinkable” that she would go into it alone, without the party’s central executive committee knowing and the party managing the crisis communications required.

3. WP disciplinary panel was ‘performatory’ to Loh

The court also heard Ms Loh was “extremely angry” when she received a message on Nov 10, 2021, that a disciplinary panel (DP) convened to look into Ms Khan’s lying controversy was inviting WP members to share their views on the episode.

The panel comprised Singh, party chairwoman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap.

Ms Loh then sent a message to Singh, which read: “Hi Pritam, I’ve tried to reserve my comments on the DP so far but I just saw the message that was sent out to everyone.”

She followed with a text that said it was “plain as day” to her that people involved in Ms Khan’s apology on Nov 1, 2021, were now doing “a little backwards pedalling”. 

In another part of the message, which was read out in court, she wrote that the party clearly did not anticipate the backlash despite warnings, and was now trying to do something to quell the anger – an action that she disagreed with.

Ms Loh said she wrote this as she had viewed the DP as “performatory”, done to quell the anger of party members and the public on the matter, but that it would not lead to “drastic actions” being taken against Ms Khan.

The court also heard that she told the WP chief then that she did not think it was “at all fair” to let party members think they had a say in the DP process if this was “done as a mock consultation exercise”. She also urged that the DP be “transparent and share their involvement”.

Giving the context to why she reacted that way, she said “I thought it was dangerous” because everyone else “did not have the full facts” that Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal knew that Ms Khan had lied as early as Aug 8, 2021.

She also noted that the DP was set up amid a groundswell of sentiments that Ms Khan should resign. “Overwhelmingly, people wanted her to resign, and they were eager to distance themselves from (Ms Khan’s) mistake and her lie,” she said.

The court then heard that Singh’s response to her was that party members needed to be given a platform to have their say on the matter rather than “commiserate privately”, to which Ms Loh responded: “I get that, but the DP hasn’t exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement.” 

Ms Loh also followed up by texting: “Their opinions are not accurate because they don’t have the facts.

“Everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake, but if she 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.”

Ms Loh told the court that she said this as her sense was that if party members had known that the leaders were involved, they would take a “significantly different opinion” of the matter.

4. Loh told Singh he should have stepped up and clarified Khan’s lie in October

Ms Loh recounted that she told Singh during a DP hearing on Nov 25, 2021, that he should have stepped up to clarify Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament in October 2021 if he was of the view that it should have been done.

He is Leader of the Opposition, and it was not just Ms Khan’s responsibility to keep matters accountable and factual to Parliament, she said.

She also told the panel that, given Singh knew that a lie had been told, he also had every opportunity to step up and clarify.

Singh got “quite upset” by this remark, pointed at her with a pen and said he had gone to Ms Khan on the night of Oct 3, Ms Loh recalled.

However, before Singh could complete his sentence, Ms Loh said she cut him off, as she still had many points to go through.

Before the panel, Ms Loh also referenced the fact that Singh had similarly made a severe mistake in Parliament before, where he plagiarised his speech about an ombudsman, she added.

The court also heard that Ms Loh had initiated the meeting with the DP, as she realised from a text exchange with Singh that he would not be inviting her and Mr Nathan for questions before the DP – an action that made her feel “intentionally not consulted”.

The meeting was thus to ensure that their thoughts on the matter were put on record, including that they had knowledge of “the true facts”, she told the court.

During the session with the DP, Ms Loh said sacking Ms Khan from the party or having her resign would be a “very severe punishment for something like this”.

She said it would also set a “problematic unprecedented record for the party”, suggesting that resignation would be the only solution if anyone made a mistake.

She added that she told the panel it was “extremely irresponsible” to leave Ms Khan’s minority seat in Compassvale unrepresented and expect the other three MPs to step in.

“Compassvale will never get the proper representation they deserve,” she said. “I also did not think it was up to the MPs – the three of them – to make that call; there is a democratic process to this,” she added.

“It was Raeesah Khan who has been voted into Parliament. To me, it felt convenient that they were using – and I said this to them – they were using precedent set by Halimah Yacob of leaving a minority seat unrepresented, despite WP’s very clear stance against the GRC system, that they just wanted Raeesah Khan out without doing the right thing.”

She said she told the panel that the right thing to do was to also ask the other MPs to step down, allowing Sengkang residents the opportunity to vote again.

5. Khan: ‘You wouldn’t confront your bosses with their own mistake’

When being cross-examined on Oct 16 by Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, Ms Khan had cited “power dynamics” as the reason why she did not mention the WP leaders’ earlier advice for them to take her lie to the grave when she gave her account before the DP on Nov 29, 2021.

Asked by the prosecution on Oct 17 to elaborate on the power imbalance she had referred to, Ms Khan said: “It’s like a conversation with your bosses. You don’t, you wouldn’t confront your bosses with their own mistake.”

Ms Khan spoke about this dynamic again when the prosecution asked her to elaborate on why she had not told Singh or Ms Lim during their meeting on the night of Oct 4, 2021, after she repeated her lie in Parliament, that she got into the mess only because of what they had told her to do.

Earlier, Mr Jumabhoy questioned her about the lack of such a reaction, and she said she never spoke to Singh and Ms Lim in such a manner.

On Oct 17, Ms Khan said: “I never spoke to them in a confrontational way; we didn’t have that kind of relationship. It was more of a ‘This is our advice and you just kind of accept it, and you move on’.”

Again on why she never considered mentioning her leaders’ guidance in any of her draft statements prepared for the Nov 1, 2021, Parliament sitting, where she ultimately admitted to having lied, Ms Khan reiterated that she wanted to protect her leaders.

“I wanted to take the full consequences of my action. I wanted to take full responsibility of what I had done,” she added.

6. Singh was ‘composed and relaxed’ during Aug 10, 2021, meeting

When the prosecution was leading her evidence, Ms Loh said she and Singh had “avoided saying things out loud” when they met on Aug 10, 2021, at the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council office in Eunos, where she said they shared a mutual understanding that Ms Khan had told a lie in Parliament. 

Noting that Singh had requested the meeting to discuss a code of conduct for WP members and volunteers, she told the court she asked about his knowledge of Ms Khan “with an understanding that she had lied”, although they explicitly referenced the fact that Ms Khan was a victim of sexual assault.

“He sort of confirmed that he understood what I was referencing and I talked about sexual assault survivors’ experiences,” she recalled.

Asked about the manner in which they communicated, Ms Loh said there was then a “prevalent belief” among Mr Nathan, Ms Khan and her that their phones may be bugged as she had received a text from Apple saying that “state forces” were trying to access her phone. 

Singh, she noted, was also “generally worried about this”, so she had had to hand over her phone for safe keeping in a drawer behind him when they met.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ben Mathias Tan asked how Singh had “sort of confirmed” his understanding of Ms Khan’s lie at this meeting, and Ms Loh said: “I asked him, has (Ms Khan) told you about the matter, and he nodded his head.”

Queried if she had asked Singh about whether the untruth would come up at that time, she said her memory is “fuzzy” on this, but recalled that she might have asked something to that effect since he had nodded his head, “affirming that it probably wouldn’t come up again”.

But she specifically remembered that Singh did not seem angry about Ms Khan’s lie during this meeting as he was “composed and relaxed”.

On why she did not respond to Ms Khan’s Aug 8, 2021, text mentioning Singh’s advice to take her lie “to the grave”, she said they had avoided discussing the lie over text messages as there was a general awareness that the lie was “severe”.

Upon further questioning by Mr Jumabhoy about this, she said she did not “fully register” the message until much later, on Nov 29, 2021, after receiving an invocation to appear before the COP.

She “had a visceral response” when she finally registered it, she added.