Pritam Singh's defence accuses Raeesah Khan of consistently lying

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.