During the trial on Wednesday morning, Andre Jumabhoy, the lawyer representing Pritam Singh, Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, accused prosecution witness Raeesah Khan of repeatedly lying during her cross-examination on Tuesday and sought to impeach her.

Jumabhoy argued that a text message sent by Khan to Singh on 4 October 2021 was “materially contradictory” to the evidence she provided in court.

After Khan was asked to step down from the stand, Jumabhoy formally made an oral application for impeachment. However, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan suggested that Jumabhoy gather more evidence before proceeding. Despite this, Jumabhoy pressed on with the application, claiming that the text message demonstrated a significant discrepancy between Khan’s court testimony and her actions.

In his oral submissions, Jumabhoy argued that the text message showed Khan had acted inconsistently with her testimony. He alleged that this discrepancy undermined her credibility.

However, Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock objected to the impeachment, arguing that the text message aligned with the overall gist of Khan’s testimony.

DAG Ang pointed out that Khan had not received the confirmation she sought from Singh and instead followed his prior advice, maintaining her interpretation of what Singh had allegedly told her during a meeting at her home on 3 October 2021.

Ang further stressed that the court should consider the entire context of the situation, rather than focusing solely on the text message. He argued that relying only on the text would be “completely inappropriate,” asserting, “There is no material discrepancy.” DAG Ang concluded that the grounds for impeachment had not been met.

Ultimately, the judge agreed with the prosecution’s objection and refused the impeachment request.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, reading the agreed statement of facts (SOF), told the counsels that he agreed with the prosecution’s view. He noted that Raeesah Khan’s response to why she did not tell the truth could not be considered in isolation, as there had been prior discussions that provided important context.

The judge also noted there was no dispute that a meeting between Singh and Khan took place on 3 October 2021, as documented in the SOF. Singh had visited Khan at her home, during which he allegedly advised her on how to handle her parliamentary lie about a rape victim’s experience with the police.

It was further revealed that Khan sent Singh a text message on 4 October 2021, asking for further guidance during the parliamentary sitting, where Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam questioned her.

Judge Tan acknowledged that it appeared Khan was specifically confronted by Shanmugam, prompting her to reach out to Singh for reassurance.

The judge ultimately concluded that Khan’s response was consistent with her earlier claims about Singh’s advice. He stated, “I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction.”

In a separate line of questioning, Jumabhoy challenged Khan’s previous testimony that Singh did not require her to tell the truth about her false statements in Parliament.

He raised an email sent by Singh to all Workers’ Party MPs on 1 October 2021, stressing the importance of backing up statements made in Parliament to avoid facing the Committee of Privileges (COP).

In her testimony, Khan claimed that she and Singh did not discuss this email during their meeting on 3 October.

Jumabhoy suggested that Singh’s email highlighted the serious consequences of lying in Parliament, contrasting with Khan’s claim that Singh told her there would be no judgment if she maintained her false account. He argued that any reasonable person would have been confused by these conflicting messages and would have sought further clarification from Singh.

Khan, however, maintained her version of events, testifying that Singh had advised her to “continue with the narrative” during their 3 October meeting. She stated that if Singh had told her to confess, she would have prepared accordingly and told the truth.

Jumabhoy pressed further, questioning whether Khan, as an experienced MP who had been in Parliament for over a year, needed specific instructions to tell the truth.

He emphasized that she did not need a directive to lie, yet claimed she required one to tell the truth. Khan responded that she sought advice from her leaders out of fear and confusion, as she felt overwhelmed by the mistake she had made.

Jumabhoy continued to argue that Khan should have questioned Singh’s advice if she found it vague or inconsistent with his previous email about parliamentary consequences. He pointed out that Khan had texted Singh during the 4 October parliamentary sitting, asking for reassurance when Shanmugam confronted her, suggesting that if Singh had already told her what to do, there was no need for this additional message.

Khan responded that she sought reassurance to confirm Singh still supported her decision to maintain the narrative, even after their discussion the night before.

Despite these arguments, the judge ultimately sided with the prosecution, ruling that there was no material contradiction in Khan’s testimony and denying the impeachment request.

The trial continues, with Singh facing charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, related to lies told by Khan in Parliament in August 2021 about a rape victim’s interaction with the police.

The defence team representing Pritam Singh, Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party (WP), began its cross-examination of former WP member Raeesah Khan on 15 October 2024 at 11:45 am.

Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, accused Khan of repeatedly lying, both in parliament and to Singh himself. These accusations relate to Khan’s 2021 parliamentary anecdote where she falsely claimed to have accompanied a rape victim to a police station.

During the intense cross-examination, Mr Jumabhoy focused on inconsistencies in Khan’s statements.

His questioning centred on the narrative Khan shared in parliament on 3 August 2021, where she described accompanying a woman to a police station.

Khan alleged that the police made inappropriate comments about the woman’s attire and alcohol consumption. she later admitted this story was fabricated, leading to significant consequences, including a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.

The defence argued that Khan’s lies extended beyond her parliamentary speech, accusing her of misleading Singh through subsequent communications.

Mr Jumabhoy highlighted a series of text messages between Khan and Singh, emphasising how Khan avoided revealing the truth.

In one exchange, Singh asked Khan for more details about the victim. Khan replied that she was unsure if she could contact the victim, but Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that Khan had no real knowledge of the victim and was continuing to fabricate details.

He remarked, “You’re adding more facts to support a lie … So it’s a lie heaped upon a lie.”

In her defence, Khan acknowledged lying but cited fear and pressure as reasons for her actions.

She explained that her respect for Singh, whom she described as a mentor, contributed to her decision to continue lying. “I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball,” Khan testified.

However, this admission did little to deter the defence’s efforts to discredit her testimony further.

Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Jumabhoy applied to impeach Khan’s credibility as a witness. The defence argued that prior inconsistencies in Khan’s statements warranted such action.

Two specific instances were presented where contradictions appeared between Khan’s police statements and her court testimony.

One instance focused on an email sent by Singh to all WP MPs on 1 October 2021 regarding parliamentary protocol.

According to Mr Jumabhoy, Khan’s account of this email differed between her police statement and her court testimony.

In court, Khan suggested that the email was a subtle reprimand directed at her. In contrast, her police statement indicated that the email caused her fear, as she worried her earlier lie would be exposed.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock challenged the relevance of this discrepancy, arguing that it did not warrant impeachment as Khan had not been asked explicitly about her emotional reaction to the email.

The second instance involved a meeting between Singh and Khan on 3 October 2021, where they allegedly discussed the possibility of her false statement resurfacing in parliament.

Khan’s police statement indicated that Singh referred to his parliamentary protocol email and warned that “they might bring it up again,” referencing her lie.

However, in her court testimony, Khan suggested Singh had indicated the matter was unlikely to resurface. This inconsistency was another point the defence used to challenge her credibility.

Despite the prosecution’s objections, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan agreed that there was an “obvious discrepancy” in Khan’s account and allowed the defence to continue exploring this line of questioning when the hearing resumes.

Throughout the cross-examination, Mr Jumabhoy persistently questioned the reliability of Khan’s recollections. He pointed out that Khan had provided multiple versions of her accounts regarding key events, such as a meeting held at Singh’s home on 8 August 2021.

According to Mr Jumabhoy, Khan’s testimony to the COP in December 2021 differed significantly from her current statements.

He noted that Khan’s COP testimony initially suggested she was advised to maintain her narrative unless questioned, while a later statement indicated a decision to “take it to the grave.” Khan explained these differences by attributing them to the specific context of the questions posed to her during the COP inquiry and her police interview.

Khan appeared more composed on Tuesday compared to the first day of the trial. She often answered Mr Jumabhoy’s questions directly but also sought deeper understanding of his queries, asking for clarifications and even posing questions back to him.

As the hearing continues, the defence is expected to further question Khan on the discrepancies in her testimony, potentially undermining her credibility.

The court session will resume on Wednesday, with the focus on the defence’s continued cross-examination of Khan.

This case has drawn public attention due to its implications for parliamentary integrity and the internal dynamics within the Workers’ Party. Singh faces two charges related to his handling of Khan’s false statement.

If convicted, Singh could face up to three years in prison, a fine of up to S$7,000 (US$5,360) for each charge, or both.

A fine exceeding S$10,000 for a charge could disqualify Singh from Parliament and prevent him from running for election for five years.