Loh Pei Ying concedes to ‘manipulation’ in redacting evidence at Pritam Singh’s trial

The trial of Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh resumed on Friday (18 Oct), with intense cross-examination of Ms Loh Pei Ying, former secretarial assistant to ex-WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan. Singh faces two charges related to allegations that he lied to the Committee of Privileges (COP) investigating the controversy surrounding Khan’s untruthful statements made in Parliament in 2021. The charges stem from an incident on 3 August 2021, when Khan claimed she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, alleging mishandling by the police. This account, delivered during a parliamentary speech on issues of sexual violence, was later revealed to be false. Khan publicly admitted to the lie on 1 November 2021. Central to Singh's trial is whether he advised Khan to continue the lie or encouraged her to come clean earlier.

Messages scrutinised in cross-examination

During the trial, defence lawyer Mr Andre Jumabhoy, representing Singh, zeroed in on a series of WhatsApp messages exchanged between Loh, Khan, and WP member Mr Yudhishthra Nathan in the days following Khan’s parliamentary falsehood. A message from Loh to Khan on 7 October 2021 was brought up during cross-examination, where Loh suggested to Khan, “Since you’re not in contact with the victim anymore, maybe don’t give the police any details about the story.” When asked by Mr Jumabhoy if this message was effectively encouraging Khan to perpetuate the falsehood, Loh denied such an intent. “I believe I’ve already given my answer yesterday,” she replied, before clarifying, "I don’t think so." However, the defence pressed on, asking if she was, in effect, advising Khan not to disclose the truth. “You might want to gather some cases of people who shared their stories with you and present that instead,” Loh had texted Khan. Mr Jumabhoy argued that these messages indicated Loh was suggesting an alternative way to justify Khan’s original statement in Parliament. “Does this message suggest that you were advising Ms Khan to reveal the truth or perpetuate the falsehood?” he asked. Loh responded: "Not these two specific messages."

Tone of messages contrasts with expressed emotions

Jumabhoy also highlighted a discrepancy between the emotional state Loh claimed to have felt and the tone of her messages. During a Committee of Privileges hearing, Loh had testified that she felt “shock” and “fear” when Khan reiterated the falsehood in Parliament on 4 October 2021, after being questioned by Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam. However, when confronted with a message she had sent to Khan the following day, 5 October, which included “LOL” (laugh out loud), the defence questioned whether her expressed emotions were genuine. “If it’s true that you felt shock and fear, why did you write that?” Mr Jumabhoy asked, referring to the casual tone of the message. Loh explained, “Humans are capable of having more than one emotion at a time… we were all feeling very stressed, and it’s not uncommon for the three of us, in stressful situations, to make the situation more bearable.” After being repeatedly pressed by the defence, she eventually conceded that the message did not fully reflect the fear she had described during the COP hearing.

Evidence redaction sparks debate over manipulation

A major point of contention in Loh’s testimony was her decision to redact parts of a message from Mr Nathan when submitting evidence to the COP. The unredacted portion of the message, sent on 7 October 2021, read:“In the first place, I think we should just not give too many details. At most, apologise for not having the facts about her age accurate.” Loh admitted to redacting this part of the message but defended her action by saying it was unrelated to the investigation. Mr Jumabhoy accused her of being “manipulative” in choosing to conceal certain parts of the evidence. Initially, Loh disagreed with this characterisation but eventually conceded under sustained questioning: “It is manipulative,” she admitted, though she maintained that her intention was not to hide incriminating details but to protect what she deemed irrelevant to the committee’s inquiry.

Did Loh encourage Raeesah Khan to operate in a ‘grey area’?

The defence also pushed the idea that it was Loh who encouraged Khan to continue operating in what she described as a “grey area.” Mr Jumabhoy suggested that Loh’s guidance to Khan was neither clearly legal nor clearly illegal, and that she advised Khan to obscure the truth in her dealings with Parliament and the COP. “You told us it was above your pay grade to advise Ms Khan, but the suggestion to operate in what you termed the grey area, it’s from you, isn’t it?” he asked. Loh disagreed with the assertion. “I think several people, including party leaders, were likewise thinking in a similar vein,” she said. However, Jumabhoy pressed her further, stating, “There’s no grey area when it comes to Raeesah Khan’s lie… It’s either tell the truth or don’t – there’s nothing grey about that.” Loh replied, “To me, there is.” She elaborated that while Khan’s claim about accompanying the victim was false, she believed the latter part of her parliamentary account, which involved a victim’s experience, was true.

Singh’s stance on the lie questioned

Another significant point during the trial was whether Singh had unequivocally directed Khan to come clean about her lie or whether there had been ambiguity in his instructions. Loh confirmed that by 12 October 2021, Singh, she, and Nathan had reached a consensus that Khan should eventually admit the truth. However, the defence suggested that Loh and Nathan were still exploring ways to avoid full disclosure.Mr Jumabhoy referred to a meeting on 12 October 2021, where Singh reportedly told the group, “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.” Loh acknowledged Singh’s firm stance but insisted that she had also been leaning towards truthfulness, though with reservations. When asked to quantify her commitment to honesty, she replied, “I wouldn’t say it was 100 per cent, but I was very close to it.” Singh’s legal team emphasised that Singh had always been in favour of telling the truth, with Mr Jumabhoy asserting, “At this meeting, or at least when the meeting started, the only one who thought that the truth should come out was Pritam Singh.” Loh replied, “No, I thought it too,” although she admitted that her certainty was around “90 per cent.”

The grey area and party consequences

Another notable line of questioning focused on the potential consequences for the Workers’ Party if Khan’s lie was exposed. Loh acknowledged that she and Nathan had been concerned about the potential fallout for the party.“ His position was that revealing the truth to Parliament and Singapore would be extremely damaging,” she said of Nathan. However, she stopped short of admitting that she had actively encouraged Khan to perpetuate the lie for the party’s sake. Loh also confirmed that she had once suggested that Khan resign as MP before the truth came out, as she believed it might help mitigate damage to both Khan and the party. “I was laying out an option,” she said, though she added that it would have been “irresponsible” for Khan to resign without first coming clean.