Pritam’s lawyer continues to raise doubts over Raeesah’s credibility on day 3 of WP chief’s trial

SINGAPORE – Whether former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan’s evidence could be relied upon continued to be the subject of cross-examination on Oct 16, the third day of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s trial.

Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, sought to take the court through inconsistencies in Ms Khan’s statements to the police and the Committee of Privileges, and the evidence she had given since the trial began on Oct 14.

This was as the defence had, on Oct 15, applied to impeach Ms Khan’s credibility as a witness.

If successful, what Ms Khan says in court would be given less weight by the judge.

Singh is contesting

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

.

In the morning, Mr Jumabhoy showed that Ms Khan’s statement to the police on May 12, 2022, was that Singh told her on Oct 3, 2021, that “knowing them (the Government), they may bring it up again”, and if her untrue anecdote was brought up in Parliament on Oct 4, he would not judge her if she kept to her lie.

However, Ms Khan said on the first day of the trial that Singh had told her on Oct 3 that he did not think the issue would come up again, but that if it did, he would not judge her for continuing with her narrative.

Asked if there was a difference between her two accounts, Ms Khan at first said they were different ways of saying the same thing, but later agreed that there was a difference.

Mr Jumabhoy then pointed to an Oct 1, 2021, e-mail that Singh had sent to all current WP MPs reminding them of the serious consequences they would face if they could not back up what they said in Parliament.

The lawyer noted that Singh had mentioned this e-mail to Ms Khan when they met on Oct 3. Her testimony that he then told her he would not judge her if she continued her narrative could not be true.

“Would you agree that that’s simply absurd? It’s so absurd that, in fact, it didn’t happen (and) he never told you to continue the narrative,” said Mr Jumabhoy.

Ms Khan disagreed. Asked why she did not question Singh on what appeared to be two contradicting messages, she said the WP chief had told her he would not judge her if she kept up her narrative, and she had left it at that.

The defence made a separate impeachment application based on Ms Khan’s Oct 4 text to Singh. When Minister for Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam raised the matter of her untrue anecdote in Parliament, she had texted the WP chief: “What should I do pritam”.

Mr Jumabhoy argued that the message was “materially contradictory” to her evidence in court.

This is because Ms Khan told the court she had lied again in Parliament on Oct 4 as she had Singh’s support to do so, while in her written statement, she said it was because Singh did not reply to her message and she was waiting for guidance.

“There can’t be a more bare-faced contradiction to what she’s saying there,” the lawyer told the court.

But Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said the message aligned with the gist of her evidence, which was to continue her narrative. When confronted by Mr Shanmugam in Parliament, Ms Khan had sought Singh’s assurance that he held to the same position from their meeting the day before, he added.

It was “completely inappropriate” for the defence to rely on just a particular sentence to look at whether Ms Khan’s credibility should be impeached, said the prosecutor.

Citing case law, he noted that the bar for impeachment is high.

“Impeachment is a process which is not lightly gone into. The court must be satisfied that there is a serious or material discrepancy,” he said.

On this point, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan ruled that he did not see a contradiction in Ms Khan’s statements, let alone a material contradiction.

He agreed with Mr Ang that Ms Khan’s court testimony cannot be read in isolation.

In the afternoon, the defence argued that Ms Khan had contradicted herself about whether she had intended to come clean in September 2021, and as such there were grounds for impeachment.

Mr Jumabhoy noted that evidence provided to the Committee of Privileges showed that Ms Khan had said she “might have” considered telling the truth then, but did not attend Parliament that month as she was down with shingles.

This piece of evidence was from Ms Khan’s statement to the police. The lawyer had tried to get a related portion of the police statement admitted in court as part of his bid to impeach Ms Khan’s credibility.

He said her answers appeared to contradict his earlier exchange with Ms Khan in court.

He had asked if she had contemplated coming clean in September 2021, and she replied no. This was because she thought the matter had been dropped.

“There’s no suggestion that she’s not coming clean because she was asked to take the matter to the grave or asked to continue the narrative,” he argued. 

Mr Jumabhoy was referring to Ms Khan’s evidence that the WP leaders had told her to take the matter to the grave on Aug 8, 2021, and Singh telling her on Oct 3 that he would not judge her if she continued her narrative.

However, the prosecution pointed out that as a general rule, when statements are reduced to question and answer form, if something is lost in the process, it cannot be considered a discrepancy.

“An omission is hardly a discrepancy. Just because you omit to say that there is another reason, that is not a discrepancy,” said Mr Ang.

He noted that witnesses can be cross-examined further on an inconsistency only if there are serious discrepancies or material contradictions which go to the crux of the charges. There was no material discrepancy here, he added.

The judge rejected the defence’s application. He said he failed to see a contradiction as the questions asked of Ms Khan were not the same.

Mr Jumabhoy wrapped up his cross-examination of Ms Khan by putting to her the defence’s position. He said that at their meeting on Aug 8, 2021, Singh had told her to speak to her parents, and that they would deal with her untruth thereafter. The WP leaders never told her at that meeting to take her lie to the grave, he added.

Ms Khan disagreed.

The prosecution is expected to wrap up its re-examination of Ms Khan on Oct 17. Ms Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre, is the next witness to take the stand.